DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Cxcvvfbgtr** · 09-13-2010, 01:54 PM

Lets level the playing field by taken military hardware out of the equation. Lets focus on who has the best soldier qualities such as discipline, bravery, and military strategy. If we introduce the hardware its not really a fair comparison.

---------- Post added 2010-09-13 at 05:40 ----------

How about the Vietnamese? never been conquered by anyone including the FKhmer, Chinese, Mongols, French, and Americans. Physically small and weaker people but they sure as hell know the art of war.

What they did was certainly impressive. It was at a huge cost in lives though. Americans aren't all that good at fighting certain types of wars, I guess their training is lacking. They depend very much on their hardware, and it even seems to me that the US military has a hardware "fetish", they think the appropriate hardware is the solution to everything. Just remember how Rumsfeldt praised their new bombs when the second Gulf war started.

You are correct that "levelling" the field may seem appropriate - but regular wars are often won by hardware, when the difference in level is too big - but guerrilla wars are rarely won at all!

I guess determination can be a crucial factor, and that may be an advantage for the locals in most conflicts.

That kind of wars can really only be won by Genghis Khan tactics - kill all the people, including civilians - THAT will stop a guerrilla war. The fact that we try to be "humane" in a war these days prevents the war from being won. In fact, because of this, wars are sometimes won by the press!

That doesn't determine who's the best soldiers, it also depends on what is meant by "best" - best at killing?

09-13-2010, 01:54 PM	#13
Cxcvvfbgtr Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 361 Senior Member	Lets level the playing field by taken military hardware out of the equation. Lets focus on who has the best soldier qualities such as discipline, bravery, and military strategy. If we introduce the hardware its not really a fair comparison. ---------- Post added 2010-09-13 at 05:40 ---------- How about the Vietnamese? never been conquered by anyone including the FKhmer, Chinese, Mongols, French, and Americans. Physically small and weaker people but they sure as hell know the art of war. What they did was certainly impressive. It was at a huge cost in lives though. Americans aren't all that good at fighting certain types of wars, I guess their training is lacking. They depend very much on their hardware, and it even seems to me that the US military has a hardware "fetish", they think the appropriate hardware is the solution to everything. Just remember how Rumsfeldt praised their new bombs when the second Gulf war started. You are correct that "levelling" the field may seem appropriate - but regular wars are often won by hardware, when the difference in level is too big - but guerrilla wars are rarely won at all! I guess determination can be a crucial factor, and that may be an advantage for the locals in most conflicts. That kind of wars can really only be won by Genghis Khan tactics - kill all the people, including civilians - THAT will stop a guerrilla war. The fact that we try to be "humane" in a war these days prevents the war from being won. In fact, because of this, wars are sometimes won by the press! That doesn't determine who's the best soldiers, it also depends on what is meant by "best" - best at killing?
	Quote